Bill Glasheen wrote:And your point is??? ...So, Justin... I am scathing of people who smoke because I used to smoke a pack of Marlboro a day, and had the cahones to quit cold turkey.

This is exactly my point. Good for you that you had the combination of biology and upbringing that made it possible for you to go cold turkey on your pack a day habit. The difference in vision is that I refuse to dismiss people who aren't thusly constituted.

I don't see why someone who lacks your fortitude deserves to be scorned, and worse, have their health care needs overlooked. It sounds like you're basically making a might makes right argument. Personal responsibility matters, but I don't think it's reasonable to cater only to smart (emotionally or otherwise) people.

As for your pro-business bias, yes I know you worked in academia. It's not just because you currently work for big business (though any honest researcher has to consider their own money-influenced bias), it's the pattern of things you've said over the years.

Valkenar wrote:Good for you that you had the combination of biology and upbringing that made it possible for you to go cold turkey on your pack a day habit. The difference in vision is that I refuse to dismiss people who aren't thusly constituted.

I believe you're missing my point, Justin. I was using smoking not as the topic of interest, but as an example of where I had the firsthand knowledge of a situation.

I have a right to give smokers (like my EX smoker son) cr@p about quitting because I've been there, done that. Had I not ever smoked, then I wouldn't truly know what it's like to smoke and to quit. Do you think because I quit cold turkey that it was easy? It wasn't. It took a whole year before I didn't want a cigarette. It took 5 years before I started not liking it around me. After a decade, I absolutely couldn't stand being in the presence of it. That's a long time to get over a habit.

I brought that up because I am in the same situation with academia. I've written grants. I've done research. I understand publish or perish, and I understand that your job lives and dies by getting grants. I also by the way was trained in mathematical modeling. So when I'm calling the bozo environmental scientists on schitty mathematical modeling, failure to understand the difference between a leading and a lagging correlation (CO2 vs. temperature) and the whole game of sensationalist findings to get more grant money and make a career for yourself, well I've been a person who swam with those fish. The group I did research with did it the right way, did important research (that resulted in dozens of publications in excellent journals), did it honestly, and actually contributed to mankind (new techniques in noninvasive tissue blood flow measurements, fibrin glue, correlating heart rhythms with health, etc.). The folks trying to convince us that we need to stop putting CO2 back where it came from - in short - do bad research and propose changes in economic activity that will hurt underdeveloped countries the most.

If I had *never* done grant writing and *never* published in reputable journals and *never* done mathematical modeling and didn't observe firsthand how things really work in academia, then I wouldn't have a leg to stand on when criticizing climate change research.

Valkenar wrote:As for your pro-business bias, yes I know you worked in academia. It's not just because you currently work for big business (though any honest researcher has to consider their own money-influenced bias), it's the pattern of things you've said over the years.

I'm libertarian-leaning. I graduated from Mr. Jefferson's University. I make my beliefs in the free market and equal opportunity (rather than equal outcome) clear. It is what it is.

You believe what you believe.

I also have a live-and-let-live attitude about social issues. I'm pro choice, so long as people don't use abortion as a means of birth control. I don't mind people doing whatever substance they want to do so long as my son doesn't get involved in it, folks don't drive or work high, and they pay for the consequences of their stupidity. I grew up as a minority. I had folks confide in me before it was cool to come out of the closet. It's all good by me. I like people, and I like variety.

Bill Glasheen wrote:I brought that up because I am in the same situation with academia. I've written grants. I've done research. I understand publish or perish, and I understand that your job lives and dies by getting grants. I also by the way was trained in mathematical modeling. So when I'm calling the bozo environmental scientists on schitty mathematical modeling, failure to understand the difference between a leading and a lagging correlation (CO2 vs. temperature) and the whole game of sensationalist findings to get more grant money and make a career for yourself, well I've been a person who swam with those fish. The group I did research with did it the right way, did important research (that resulted in dozens of publications in excellent journals), did it honestly, and actually contributed to mankind (new techniques in noninvasive tissue blood flow measurements, fibrin glue, correlating heart rhythms with health, etc.). The folks trying to convince us that we need to stop putting CO2 back where it came from - in short - do bad research and propose changes in economic activity that will hurt underdeveloped countries the most.

If I had *never* done grant writing and *never* published in reputable journals and *never* done mathematical modeling and didn't observe firsthand how things really work in academia, then I wouldn't have a leg to stand on when criticizing climate change research.

And I presume you have evidence and mathematical models to back up these opinions? I, and the rest of the scientific community, would be particularly interested in your mathematical models that show how putting vast amounts of CO2 that have been locked up underground for tens-to-hundreds of millions of years "back where it came from" into the atmosphere in a period of a couple of centuries is having no negative effects. Your mathematical models that demonstrate that observed climate change is all natural would be equally welcome. Those would be the "sensationalist findings", given that the standard model is not sensationalist anymore.

Bill Glasheen wrote:The group I did research with did it the right way, did important research (that resulted in dozens of publications in excellent journals), did it honestly, and actually contributed to mankind

Why that describes the climate scientists I have the pleasure of working with and whose students I help teach and train. The difference between leading and lagging correlation is well understand, and part of (but not all there is to) determining causality. What you are not acknowledging is that the natural world is far more complex then the experimental laboratory in which you conducted research. Determining causality is not as straight forward when you cannot control all the variables like you could experimenting on your dogs.

Bill Glasheen wrote:The folks trying to convince us that we need to stop putting CO2 back where it came from - in short - do bad research and propose changes in economic activity that will hurt underdeveloped countries the most.

Good luck convincing the people of Lohachara, Vanuatu, and Kiribati of this.

Glenn wrote:And I presume you have evidence and mathematical models to back up these opinions?

Why must I build a mathematical model, fraught with limitations and assumptions? It's much easier to do a cross correlation between CO2 levels and temperature through history. It goes beyond a simple statistical correlation. It shows that temperature leads CO2 levels, and not the other way around.

Glenn wrote:I, and the rest of the scientific community

ALL scientists are on "your" side, eh? NOT! But nice try. I like your debating style.

Glenn wrote:having no negative effects.

Pray tell, what in life has "no negative effects"? Certainly no treatments in medicine, and yet many treatments with potential side effects in a large population are considered evidence-based and state-of-the-art.

When a system's parameters change, the system changes. Change is associated with positives and negatives. There are winners and losers. The only questions are how much, to whom, and the net effect.

Glenn wrote:What you are not acknowledging is that the natural world is far more complex then...

Our environment is robust in ways that we can't quite fully understand yet. We mathematicians write wonderful models that work well in narrow ranges. But violate the assumptions or go outside the bounds that the equations in the model "behave" and all bets are off. Truth be told, mathematicians are great at linear models, and suk at modeling a nonlinear world. And some nonlinear phenomena (a.k.a. a system in mathematical chaos) are predictably unpredictable (a.k.a. the butterfly effect).

Furthermore, you can't build a mathematical model which accounts for principles and processes you aren't aware of.

And finally... Climate Change happens. It has happened to extremes long before humans started sending stored carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere where it came from.

Glenn wrote: the experimental laboratory in which you conducted research...

For instance... I wrote a mathematical model which showed a correlation between tissue blood flow and thickness of the myocardium during a cardiac cycle. I validated it in the lab. Real world data show how close your models are to reality. And when they aren't quite the same, it's not all failure. It in fact shows you are missing something. And *that* negative finding often won't get published *because* it's a negative finding. Such is the bias in our scientific community.

A good read when you get the chance.

It speaks to the problems that exist when presenting new and/or "unpopular" ideas. A good example is the group (including Barry Marshall at UVa*) which suggested that duodenal ulcers might be caused not by stress, but rather by a bacterium (H Pylori). When laughed at during scientific meetings, one of the P.I.s actually infected himself to prove the point. Too bad for Pharma. They lost out on mega $$ from selling H2 antagonists. Doesn't it suk when we actually cure a condition?

And there is your problem. Where there is money, there is corruption. Academia - so dependent on grants and publishing - isn't immune to a disease of the unwashed masses living at the foot of the ivory tower.

- Bill

* In 2005, the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Marshall and Robin Warren, his long-time collaborator, for their discovery of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease.

Bill Glasheen wrote:Why must I build a mathematical model, fraught with limitations and assumptions? It's much easier to do a cross correlation between CO2 levels and temperature through history. It goes beyond a simple statistical correlation. It shows that temperature leads CO2 levels, and not the other way around.

What, YOU are taking the easy way out?!?! Now I really am disillusioned!

Seriously though, there are a lot of assumptions going on in the approach you are taking, not the least of which is that the timing data of both are accurate. But more importantly you are focusing on a single tree, in this case a single graph, and not the forest of evidence. This chart of model results for example supports the dominant theory that observed temperature changes are being influenced by both natural and human causes:

Here is a version that separates the three model results:

supports

ALL scientists are on "your" side, eh? NOT! But nice try. I like your debating style.

What is interesting about your debating style Bill is your frequent use of distraction and diversion techniques to move a debate away from certain areas, when you do not ignore those areas all together that is. As you know, my statement had nothing to do with sides.

Pray tell, what in life has "no negative effects"? Certainly no treatments in medicine, and yet many treatments with potential side effects in a large population are considered evidence-based and state-of-the-art.

When a system's parameters change, the system changes. Change is associated with positives and negatives. There are winners and losers. The only questions are how much, to whom, and the net effect.

Yes but we cannot always bury our heads in the sand and wait to see what happens, particularly given what is at stake in this case. And we cannot make decisions based only on what helps the rich. In all likelihood some corporations and investors will benefit greatly from the decreased Arctic ice cap in the future, but at what cost to the native Arctic peoples and wildlife, the coastal peoples flooded out, the island nations that disappear, etc. Climate change has global impacts, it affects everyone, and is too big to be left only to the market or those who get rich off of the market to decide.

To use your example, think of curbing climate change as a medical treatment, with benefits to the many but potential negative side effects to the few.

Take for instance the recent BP-induced Gulf Oil Spill. Who would have predicted that natural forces would rid us of much of the spilled oil? We didn't, but it happened.

Our environment is robust in ways that we can't quite fully understand yet. We mathematicians write wonderful models that work well in narrow ranges. But violate the assumptions or go outside the bounds that the equations in the model "behave" and all bets are off. Truth be told, mathematicians are great at linear models, and suk at modeling a nonlinear world. And some nonlinear phenomena (a.k.a. a system in mathematical chaos) are predictably unpredictable (a.k.a. the butterfly effect).

Furthermore, you can't build a mathematical model which accounts for principles and processes you aren't aware of.

And finally... Climate Change happens. It has happened to extremes long before humans started sending stored carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere where it came from.

You of all people know we have to start somewhere. You build models based on what is known, and modify or build new models as more information becomes available. Highlighting the simplicity of models is one thing, working to improve them is on a different level, and what the scientists are attempting.

And again, sending things back where they came from, particularly in a period of time that at best moves the decimal place five places to the left, is not automatically a good thing.

A good read when you get the chance.

It speaks to the problems that exist when presenting new and/or "unpopular" ideas.

I read it, first ~25 years ago for a history of geography course and then again last year for a political science course. It models a particular period in the history of physics, and as you say it works well within that range but has been critiqued for being too broadly applied. The picture you used is of the second edition, I recommend the third edition where Kuhn himself rejects some of the interpretations and applications of his ideas. Elsewhere Kuhn is quoted as saying "I am not a Kuhnian!" as another statement of rejecting how some 'followers' were using his ideas.

But to your point, the counter-claim that anthropogenic influences on climate do not exist is hardly a new one, it is the null hypothesis after all, and almost everyone would like it to be true so it is not particularly unpopular. It simply is not supported by the evidence...maybe someday though.

And there is your problem. Where there is money, there is corruption. Academia - so dependent on grants and publishing - isn't immune to a disease of the unwashed masses living at the foot of the ivory tower.

I think one factor here is that you have a hard time believing people willingly choose career-paths for reasons other than money. Discovering something new and the thrill of the chase is what drives most academic scientists, particularly in something like climate research...it certainly is not for wealth. The grants enable them to go where they could not otherwise go. For example my university has a strong Arctic program and the researchers travel there to take measurements, test their models, see first hand what is happening, and talk to the people directly affected, in other words they get out of the ivory tower to better model the real world. Grants enable that kind of science. But even with that, in general most academic publications do not come from grant-supported research (it varies depending on the field of course, your field of training probably has a higher association between grants and publications due to the nature of the research and the technology requirements...not to mention there simply is a lot of money thrown at medical and engineering research). I am a good example of this, my master's thesis was not grant supported, my dissertation research is not grant supported, and I am currently working on two publications unrelated to my dissertation work that are also not grant supported.

The biggest flaw with your corruption hypothesis is tenure. Once a faculty person makes tenure he or she is no longer dependent on grants or publishing and could conceivably coast until retirement. I have yet to meet anyone who has done that however, because everyone I know enjoys research. My advisor is 70 and has yet to talk about retiring, and he is very active teaching, researching, presenting at conferences, and publishing. He simply loves it. Another professor I work with on some outreach got his PhD in the early 1970s and says he wanted to work in a field that tackles big problems, and he ended up choosing climate research because he also wanted to work in something that was not controversial (little did he know how that would change a decade later). He too is close to 70 and still travels to the Arctic every year. He simply loves it. And even those who retire usually do so as emeriti, continuing to research and advise but no longer teach in a classroom. People who are intimately aware of the evidence, and the strengths and weaknesses of that evidence, and are no longer dependent on anything still support the model that fits that evidence. Think about that.

This falls under the broader category of a strawman tactic. You're painting a picture of me in one corner, and "the rest of the scientific community" in another. Once that picture is well established by you, it's easy then to proceed with your arguments.

Sorry, but no. "The scientific community" is hardly at a consensus about climate. I in fact was helping a friend of mine in a geography class this semester. Her professor was retired from NASA's military division, and would comment often about the "climate change" debate. He was hardly in your corner. That is one example of many.

In case you didn't know, we have a few NASA people in Virginia. Their existence is the reason why I'm a Virginian, and not born in New York after dad graduated from Manhattan Engineering School.

Glenn wrote:Yes but we cannot always bury our heads in the sand and wait to see what happens, particularly given what is at stake in this case.

I have empirical evidence on my side, Glenn. Why do you think they call it "fossil fuel"? All that CO2 used to be in the atmosphere. The climate was so good back then that plant life was accumulating en masse - forming what we now call fossil fuel. Not such a bad world, eh?

And what do you have? Mathematical modelers. Been there, done that. I know its strengths and limitations.

Glenn wrote:we cannot make decisions based only on what helps the rich.

Another strawman tactic. The thing is, you have it backwards.

The increased costs of a world with "alternative fuel" will hurt the poor the most. Please show me an analysis which proves otherwise. You won't find it. The wealthy and the Hollywood elite will find a way. The poor won't be able to afford to heat their homes and drive their cars. Third world countries won't be able to advance.

Right now fossil fuels provide the cheapest energy. The only issue is petroleum vs. coal vs. natural gas. Add in nuclear, hydroelectric, and everything else and you have an energy policy. Get rid of what is cheapest and most abundant, and you have a big problem. The supply of energy will dwindle, and the cost of energy will skyrocket. Those with the most money will survive; those who can least afford it will suffer.

Glenn wrote:you have a hard time believing people willingly choose career-paths for reasons other than money.

No I don't Glenn. If I was in it for the money, I would have followed in my dad's footsteps. I didn't. I got a PhD. I spent a lot of time in school learning to do what I had a passion for rather than accumulating wealth and taking advantage of the time value of money.

Wish you could have had a few talks with my dad. He understood all the concepts.

No matter where you are, Glenn, money talks. It talks in academia as well. Even if you get tenure, the only place you can get things done without grant money is maybe pure mathematics. Everything else requires research grants, which depend upon a track record of publishing, etc., etc.

If you're studying and researching w/o grant money, well then somebody is paying your tuition and bills. If it's you, well that's a problem. Graduate students should be supported by grant/scholarship money. If they have to pay for it out of pocket, that says something.

I know. Been there, done that. When I was in academia, we were good at what we did. I chose to go into industry because I was recruited into the field I'm now in. They sought me out, and not the other way around.

In case you haven't noticed, China is rapidly buying up agreements around the world for long-term fossil-based fuel. They're also a big user of domestic coal. You may have noticed how clean Beijing appeared during the Olympics. That's because they shut their factories down to make the air cleaner. Once the world and television cameras left, the factories fired back up again.

I'm not suggesting the U.S. go back to a time where LA was constantly under smog. But I am suggesting that the use of fossil fuels until they are tapped out is a fait accompli. If we choose to spend more of our GDP on energy, then China will continue on a path of beating the U.S. industrially. This country will become more and more in debt to China, and they will own us. Before long we will be like South America was to the U.S. when there was a massive accumulation of debt without an ability to pay. China and its political model will evolve as *the* Superpower in the world. Good times!

Or not...

We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and natural gas. We've got quite the petroleum reserves as well. We've got an ability to run our economy just fine on relatively inexpensive energy for several centuries. The difference between us and China is that we're a free society, and our citizens don't tolerate high levels of pollution. We like our air fresh and our tuna free of mercury. And... we are us and they are them. Home team wants to win.

Furthermore... many countries not as blessed as the U.S. in resources can survive and thrive in a world of relatively inexpensive energy. They're the first to go under when the price of energy skyrockets.

I don't have a problem with our government taxing the use of fossil fuels and using that money to fund research in our next generation of energy. Uncle Sam already subsidizes oil with our presence in the Persian Gulf region. It's time our citizens paid the true price of a gallon of gas or tank of heating oil. Frankly... the same goes for our "allies" that benefit from our military.

There is an approach to all this that doesn't require we take extreme, one-dimensional points of view.

In case you haven't noticed, China is rapidly buying up agreements around the world for long-term fossil-based fuel. They're also a big user of domestic coal. You may have noticed how clean Beijing appeared during the Olympics. That's because they shut their factories down to make the air cleaner. Once the world and television cameras left, the factories fired back up again.

I'm not suggesting the U.S. go back to a time where LA was constantly under smog. But I am suggesting that the use of fossil fuels until they are tapped out is a fait accompli. If we choose to spend more of our GDP on energy, then China will continue on a path of beating the U.S. industrially. This country will become more and more in debt to China, and they will own us. Before long we will be like South America was to the U.S. when there was a massive accumulation of debt without an ability to pay. China and its political model will evolve as *the* Superpower in the world. Good times!

Or not...

We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and natural gas. We've got quite the petroleum reserves as well. We've got an ability to run our economy just fine on relatively inexpensive energy for several centuries. The difference between us and China is that we're a free society, and our citizens don't tolerate high levels of pollution. We like our air fresh and our tuna free of mercury. And... we are us and they are them. Home team wants to win.

Furthermore... many countries not as blessed as the U.S. in resources can survive and thrive in a world of relatively inexpensive energy. They're the first to go under when the price of energy skyrockets.

I don't have a problem with our government taxing the use of fossil fuels and using that money to fund research in our next generation of energy. Uncle Sam already subsidizes oil with our presence in the Persian Gulf region. It's time our citizens paid the true price of a gallon of gas or tank of heating oil. Frankly... the same goes for our "allies" that benefit from our military.

There is an approach to all this that doesn't require we take extreme, one-dimensional points of view.

- Bill

You'd be better off buying discounted Canadian crude oil at 2/3rd the world price, shipping it via the proposed keystone pipe line and up grading it in the gulf. In a few hundred years when that source of energy is gone start using your own reserves.

Feur wrote:You'd be better off buying discounted Canadian crude oil at 2/3rd the world price, shipping it via the proposed keystone pipe line and up grading it in the gulf. In a few hundred years when that source of energy is gone start using your own reserves.

Laird

I couldn't agree more, Laird!

It'll take a few politicians losing their seats before we can get Congress and O'Dumbo out of the way of that pipeline. It's not a matter of if it will be built, but when.

Sorry for the delayed reply Bill, end of the semester got in the way so I had to put this conversation on hold, plus since you only cherry-picked four lines out of all I wrote and ignored the empirical evidence I presented there did not seem to be much urgency. I will return the favor and comment on only a few of your points.

Bill Glasheen wrote:Let me repeat something I quoted.

Glenn wrote:I, and the rest of the scientific community

This falls under the broader category of a strawman tactic. You're painting a picture of me in one corner, and "the rest of the scientific community" in another. Once that picture is well established by you, it's easy then to proceed with your arguments.

Sorry, but no. Scientists on both sides of the issue would be interested in such proof. I was not playing favorites, and there was no strawman. You seem to see strawmen everywhere Bill, there is probably counseling for that! Evidence-based science is the key Bill, to wit:

I have empirical evidence on my side, Glenn. Why do you think they call it "fossil fuel"? All that CO2 used to be in the atmosphere. The climate was so good back then that plant life was accumulating en masse - forming what we now call fossil fuel. Not such a bad world, eh?

Back when Bill? Fossil fuels represent millions of years of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by specific types of biomass, as part of a natural process that also included other CO2 being added to the atmosphere. Climate was hardly uniform throughout that time; in some times and places it would have been a good world, at other times and places not so much. And what empirical evidence? If you are talking about geologic empirical evidence, it does not exist because CO2 that was stored up over millions of years being released over only a couple of centuries appears to have never occurred on Earth before. This is a brand new un-natural experiment we are forcing on Earth, all we have to go on is the empirical evidence of what is happening today as it happens and what the models indicate, and neither of those are on your side.

If we choose to spend more of our GDP on energy, then China will continue on a path of beating the U.S. industrially.

This has less to do with amount of GDP spent on energy and more to do with decisions made by American investors and corporations that would rather invest in China than America. Greed will be the downfall of the U.S. long before energy spending does us in.

We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and natural gas. We've got quite the petroleum reserves as well. We've got an ability to run our economy just fine on relatively inexpensive energy for several centuries. The difference between us and China is that we're a free society

That is just it, we are a free society yet it would take nationalizing energy to develop the energy security you allude to. After all, the U.S. no longer has any of those energy reserves you speak of, the global market does. China is certainly looking forward to the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline reaching the Texas coast, since it is part of those agreements they are rapidly buying up, but unfortunately since all of the oil flowing through it is planned to be exported it will do nothing for U.S. energy security.

Glenn wrote:That is just it, we are a free society yet it would take nationalizing energy to develop the energy security you allude to. After all, the U.S. no longer has any of those energy reserves you speak of, the global market does. China is certainly looking forward to the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline reaching the Texas coast, since it is part of those agreements they are rapidly buying up, but unfortunately since all of the oil flowing through it is planned to be exported it will do nothing for U.S. energy security.

No.

If we choose Obamathink and focus considerable resources on renewable energy while China burns coal and petroleum to their heart's desire, that is an economic scenario which in the long run will benefit the Chinese and devastate our economy.

Furthermore, natural gas doesn't transport well. It's best used close to where it is produced. Have you been watching the stock market lately? It has nothing to do with Obama economic policy. The presence of cheap natural gas has been a game changer. Manufacturing jobs are coming back home again. And that's just the tip of the carbon iceberg. As a former chemist, I'm qualified to tell you there's better living ahead through modern organic chemistry.

And finally... When the world is flooded with oil, the price of energy goes down for everyone. That scenario is particularly beneficial to third world countries (per my arguments above). You don't have a problem with that, do you? It does kind of blow that whole exclusive Gatsby lifestyle thing amongst the Hollywood elite, but... I'm all for "the little people" being able to afford food and clothing. <sarcasm>

Oh we got it...it's not what you said but the way you said it, in particular setting yourself up for an out-of-context quote as Valkenar demonstrated. If you were running for office your campaign manager would be banging his or her head against the wall and telling you to only say what you are told to say.